GIAN GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 5, the owner of the property, 6, Alipore Road, and the petitioner and 21 others entered into an agreement to sell dt. 8th Oct., 1991, whereby the latter agreed to purchase the property for a sum of Rs. 180 lakhs from the former. A sum of Rs. 75 lakhs was received by the fifth respondent as earnest money from the intending purchasers. On 21st Oct., 1991, a statement in Form No. 37 -I was filed before the Appropriate Authority which was signed by respondent No. 5 as transferor and by the petitioner and others as transferees. Thereafter, on 30th Dec., 1991, the Appropriate Authority ordered pre -emptive purchase of the property under Sub -S. (1) of S. 269UD of the IT Act, 1961, for an amount equal to the apparent consideration, viz., Rs. 180 lakhs. On the same day, the Appropriate Authority issued an order under S. 269UE(2) of the Act directing the transferor and any other person in possession of the property to surrender or deliver possession thereof to it within 15 days of the service of the said order. A perusal of the writ petition shows that while in the prayer the petitioner has challenged the pre -emptive purchase and eviction orders, in the body of the writ petition the thrust is against the eviction order.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the clients has two capacities, one as the purchaser of the property and the other as tenant and he is challenging the impugned orders in both the capacities. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India & Ors. (1992) 108 CTR (SC) 304 r/w (1993) 110 CTR (SC) 179 : (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC) : TC3PS.87.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Revenue and the respondent No. 5 submitted that the petitioner cannot challenge the pre -emptive purchase order inasmuch as he had waived his right to challenge the same. In support of this contention, our attention has been drawn to the letters of the petitioner dt. 8th Jan., 1992, and 15th Jan., 1992, addressed to the Appropriate Authority. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel that the petitioner accepted the refund of the advance payment from the transferor. It is, however, not disputed that the petitioner can raise objections to the quit orders before the Appropriate Authority.